Successive governments have placed science and technology at the heart of efforts to make Britain more prosperous. Most recently, Sir Keir Starmer unveiled plans to make Britain a world leader in innovation by mainlining artificial intelligence “into the veins of this enterprising nation”.
But there’s a problem.
Civil servants in central government departments often lack the knowledge and expertise required to understand and navigate the rapidly changing world of science and technology and their profound impacts on all aspects of society.
Liam Fox, former defence secretary, once quoted a senior civil servant as saying “we were all more qualified to talk about Rousseau than RNA”; while James Phillips, former science and technology adviser to the PM, said officials with the power to shape the government's response to Covid "weren’t really scientifically literate in the necessary ways”.
This concern is not new. The former chief executive of the civil service, John Manzoni, said Whitehall’s “cult of the gifted amateur” meant generalist managerial skills had long been prioritised over deep subject-matter expertise. And a 2013 Government Office for Science report found scientists and engineers within the civil service were often not given the responsibility or authority their expertise warranted, being viewed primarily as advisers rather than potential leaders. Over a decade later, this finding is still relevant.
It’s not that every civil servant needs to be a Scientist with a capital “S”. It’s that civil servants need to be more comfortable with data and technology.
There need to be reforms in Whitehall if Britain is to harness science and technology to boost its national prosperity. In my new report for the Council on Geostrategy’s Caudwell Strong Britain, I highlight several ways to improve scientific and technological understanding within the civil service, as well as ways to enhance Britain’s strategic analysis of its scientific and technological aims and capabilities.
The role and structure of chief scientific advisers requires a refresh to help them navigate the duality of their advisory and challenging functions. We should also question whether CSAs in their current setup are too institutionalised to be effective “licensed dissidents”.
Alongside this, Britain would benefit from learning from the Secretary of State’s Office for Net Assessment and Challenge in the Ministry of Defence, and applying those lessons to enhance innovation. A new entity in the image of SONAC but focused specifically on science and technology would help challenge current thinking and perspectives.
"It’s not that every civil servant needs to be a Scientist with a capital 'S'. It’s that civil servants need to be more comfortable with data and technology"
This should be coupled with a What Works Centre that helps organise institutional memory of ideas and proposals on science and technology – both successful and unsuccessful – which would help civil servants learn from previous experience.
More broadly, reforming the civil service workforce could help build knowledge and expertise within government.
Limited opportunities for advancement and pay increases within a single role lead to excessive personnel movement across Whitehall. Although churn is present in most large organisations, it’s especially high in the civil service. Tackling that will help foster greater expertise and understanding within departments and, in doing so, help counter the continual erosion of institutional memory.
Reforms could also help tackle underperformance in the civil service. Clearer job descriptions and ownership of work would help identify poor performers; at present, it’s often not clear to employees – or their seniors or teams – what exactly their remit is, and what exactly they are responsible for delivering. This should be considered alongside increasing the salaries of high-performing civil servants funded, through a reduction in overall headcount, and streamlining the processes for letting go of underperformers.
Finally, reforms can help stimulate diverse thinking in Whitehall. Scrapping “success profiles” would help draw in wider perspectives and help avoid creating systemic holes in Whitehall thinking. The civil service needs to rethink how and why it engages external expertise. In particular, it should build internal capability and reduce reliance on external large consultancies, who are often called to give the same viewpoints.
We need a Whitehall that is as comfortable with the language of science, technology, engineering and maths as it is with the intricacies of political theory. Only then can we ensure Britain’s scientific strength translates into national prosperity, moving us out of the “tepid bath of managed decline”.
Dr Mann Virdee is senior research fellow (science, technology and economics) at the Council on Geostrategy